Mobile phones in competition.
Sweden's biggest newspaper, "Aftonbladet", the other day presented a test of mobile telephones' capacity to work in demanding surroundings. The test was executed by using the telephones in a L-formed subway tunnel and distance away from the corner in the direction from the caller was taken as the measure of the telephones capacity to maintain contact. The capacity of the individual phone was assessed by measuring the distance inside the tunnel, away from the caller, where it still managed to handle 5 consecutive calls (with good sound quality). Thus the longer the distance - expressed in meters away from the corner inside the tunnel - the better was the capacity of the phone, and thus: the higher it was ranked.
The big 2-pages headline of the test said: "THE MOST EXPENSIVE MOBILE PHONE HAS THE WORST SOUND". Together with text and graphics of how the test was executed the results were summarized as Motorola cd920 as the "best mobile phone" and Nokia 8810 as "the poorest mobile phone".
The test included 33 different phones by different manufacturers. The five top rankings went to Motorola cd920 (ranking 1; 28,2 meters); Motorola cd930 (2); and Bosch Dual-Com 738 (3); Ericsson SH 888 (4); Siemens S 15 E (4).
The five poorest rankings went to Bosch GSM 908 (29); Panasonic EB-G600 (30); Hagenuk GlobalHandy (31); Ericsson GH 688 (32); and Nokia 8810 (ranking 33; 0 meters). The best Nokia machine comes as no. 8: Nokia 6150 (ranking 8; 16,8 meters).
The text further depicts the Nokia 8810 as "good looking, expensive, and dumb". The article is published when the Swedes are on the threshold to Christmas shopping, and surely the article affects many people's choices about which phone they will buy as a Christmas present to their loved one. Probably the "test-result" also affects some people's overall image of the quality of Nokias mobile phone products.
I am not enough an expert to fully evaluate the significance of the test, and of course it may be crude and expose great limitations. However, one can with the persons behind the article wonder about why Nokia in a machine which in Sweden costs 1.272 USD, the most expensive on the market (?), does not include technique that guarantees the best working capacity. I hope that Nokia does not get blind by its immense growth and good reputation so that they start to think that they can bluff consumers with their goodwill and elegant (silvery?) design. The most important quality of a mobile phone (besides design which is important but not primary) is that it works. My opinion is that a Nokia should NEVER be the last Jumbo in a test like this. At least not, when it at the same time is the most expensive of the ones in competition!
Thankful for any comments on this matter from any of the real experts that are active on this list, Tero Kuittinen and others... Or from Mika Kukkanen, or someone else who represents Nokia, why not?
I am not expecting explanations from ever-faithful Nokia-"believers" only about the test being done in Sweden, as the "home" of one of Nokias competitors on the market, L M Ericsson. Simply because I think those explanations on are irrelevant and not valid.
From a worried, surprised, and somewhat disappointed shareholder, who is impressed by the exceptional knowledge expressed in the messages of this discussion group,
Joar |
